Hi,
> On 13. Apr 2020, at 12:02, Lluís Batlle i Rossell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I think that GNUNet and TUDelft's ipv8 (and whole ecosystem of trustchain, > onion routing, etc.) have a big overlap. > > Is there any shared work? or declaration opposite work? Or evaluation of > both by one or the other side? I do not think there is any detailed review or comparison. I have never heard of it until now. Reading the "Feature" section here [1] I do not think this is well thought through concept. It cites two publications, one of them only dealing with NAT and at the same time claiming it is "academically pure" (whatever that means, I assume they mean "sound"? The papers are 7-9 years old). It relies on UDP via IPv4 as transport which does not seem like a reasonable choice given the options on the table today. Flexibility with respect to transports is something we have identified as a core issue. Especially since eliminating metadata-exposing transports/addressing on the physical layer is what we need in the long run. To be honest I also stopped reading at "ledger-based storage of reputation data". Without trying to bash, looks to me like yet another blockchain-based future internet tech. The website at least fails to provide the key value offerings. Are there other resources? If they have any insights into better NAT handling, that would a great resource, but the paper is already 9 years old so I would assume people read it already. BR Martin [1] https://py-ipv8.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ > > Thank you, > Lluís. > > -- > (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP) > PGP key 7CBD1DA5 - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
